Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewbacca
None. However I shouldn't have to explain why breathing is not pollution but coal plant emission are, so I won't. Surely doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
I find semantic "gotcha" games the thread has begun to devolved into on par with shrill alarmism and magical thinking. All of these are pursuits which reap little of value other than perhaps a short-lived chuckle, but at the expense of whom?
|
Hold it a damn second you brought up that CO2 is by definition a polutant because it's put there by humans... that's not the difinition of polutant a polutant must first be harmful, and since the entire arugement is if human caused CO2 is harmful or not, it is very important to get the definitions right. Calling human caused CO2 a polutant is ASSuming facts not in evidence.
CO2 is used by plants to grow, part of what makes them live. What happens in nature when any living things have more of what they need to live? Nature makes more of them and in the case of plants they grow faster, stronger and better.... So just exactly where in the Hale is the Poluting?
Chewie you don't want to play semantic games because you threw a hanging curve ball that I hit out of the park, then blew you kisses as I rounded the bases. Then you piss and moun about so called games while making the comments of alarism and magical thinking?????
Calling CO2 polution and then using that as proof that it is polution is a curcular arugement. Show me the facts first, hale Chewie if you could do that then you wouldn't have to worry about being chuckled at, Hale you be doing the chuckling cause I would be knocking the otherside's hanging curve balls out of the park and blowing them kisses as I rounded the bases. Hale's bells Chewie at least when the Yankies got tired of watching the Sultan of Swat knock'em out of the park they did what they had to do to get him on their team. Show me the facts. The opinion in the article about what how much CO2 nature can aborb has no facts to it. Show me the experiment where a closed greenhouse full of plants recieved the equal percentage increase of human caused CO2 and the effects on the plants. If they were able to absorb the additional CO2. Compared to a closed Greenhouse that didn't have the additonal increase. What were the effects of the two causes.
Cerek I didn't see you playing any so called semantic games but thanks for taking the bullet
